( December 5, 2012, Hong Kong/ Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) According to reports,
the Chief Justice (CJ) through her lawyers have informed the
Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) that she wishes to
waive the right to have the impeachment proceedings
in-camera and instead wishes the inquiry to be open to the
public. The Rajapaksa government has used every opportunity
to make their allegations against the CJ public; in fact, a
propaganda war has been waged making use of the state media,
taxi drivers and paid demonstrators. Since the government is
so eager to create the widest possible publicity and thinks
that such publicity is to its advantage there is no reason
for it not to grant the wish of the CJ, the affected judge,
to waive her rights given under Standing Order 78A (8) which
prescribes that the proceedings should be published only if
the judge is found guilty. Since this Standing Order is a
safeguard against the judge who is being accused the waiving
of the safeguard is the prerogative of the affected judge.

Since 117 Members of Parliament have signed the
petition supporting the allegations it is not only their
right but also their duty to find out whether the
allegations they have made are sustainable or they are
blatant lies. The CJ through her lawyers have invited the
MPs to come and there is no valid reason for them to refuse
that invitation. Surely any honest accuser would want to
know whether they accusations he or she has made are true or
false.

The Rajapaksa government relies heavily
on propaganda. It has used the state television and other
media to propagate its position with extraordinary zest. In
fact, it has even allowed the broadcasters to break all
their ethical codes and do all they can to put before the
people whatever the government wishes to propagate. Under
such circumstances if the government believes that it has a
genuine case against the CJ there is no reason to deny the
wish of the CJ to have the allegations inquired into in full
glare of the public.

In fact, when allegations
are being made against the chief of the judiciary such
allegations are of the highest public importance and
therefore the public would have a good reason to know what
is going on. If the government wants to deny the public
their right to know it is their obligation to explain to the
public as to why it is denying the request made by the CJ.
The government cannot take cover under the Standing Order
78A (8) which is available to a judge for the purpose of
protecting that judge against unfair allegations. By
indicating that the CJ wishes the inquiry to be held in
public she is clearly stating that she has nothing to hide
and that she is willing to bear the consequences of having
the inquiry in public.

The judicial officers who
met last week expressed their concern about the process of
impeachment which they see as unfair, not only to the CJ but
also to the independence of the judiciary as a whole. They
are concerned that under the abuse of media freedoms used
against the judiciary it would become difficult to continue
with the judicial function in the country and this is a
serious warning of what is at stake. It is the
administration of justice in the entire country which is in
peril due to manner in which the government has proceeded in
this case.

By all indications most people in the
country and also in the international community are not with
the government as far as these proceedings are concerned.
The government has failed to convince the public and the
international community that it, in fact, has a just cause
to take the steps that it has on this issue. There are open
accusations of blatant unfairness and injustice made by
senior citizens including Buddhist monks.

Under
these circumstances the government is under the obligation
to respect the right of information of the public. As the CJ
herself has invited the government to grant the public their
right to view the inquiry the refusal of the government
would indicate that it is deliberately attempting to
withhold information on a matter of the greatest public
importance.

As for the example of other
countries it was quite recently that an impeachment inquiry
was held in the Philippines against their Chief Justice. The
entire proceedings were telecast internationally. In that
particular instance that Chief Justice was found guilty of
the charges as it was proved that he held about two million
US dollars in foreign banks without disclosing this in his
declaration of assets. As the people had the opportunity to
watch the proceedings there were no allegations of any kind
of unfairness towards the judge during the proceedings.

As the CJ of Sri Lanka has herself invited the
government to provide opportunity for the public to view
these proceedings the government might follow the example of
the Philippines and telecast the proceedings.